that indicated this was the reason that he had concerns. >> as opportunistic as it might look, he did say these things, as i pointed out in the piece from 2005, right after the resignation, so there is a continuity here. it's not like he invented it or presented it out of whole cloth. the other side of the argument, though, john, that has been raised today that since the one example he points to from the days before the election in 2004 did not end in the elevation of the terror level threat and diminishes in some way the fact of pressure that was applied. is there not an obvious fallacy in there? >> there is an obvious fallacy and that isn't the way the criminal law works, for example. if somebody actually conspired to do this an overt act was made, pressure was made and didn't get the pressure to succeed, it wouldn't any way diminish the crime. looking at in a broader context if this was the conduct and history reveals to me the conduct, these people got away with a crime. >> the secretary's reaction to this was he needed to leave government. he needed to resign but, of course he didn't do it in the days before the election and he did not, neither did he resign immediately but was he not in a position perhaps to investigate this in some way, at least start to investigate it before somebody shut off his alarm clock?